Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: This is territory rich in biodiversity.
Evidence B:Medium-high level for species and some KBAs around, but important intact forests, core of a very large renmanent block.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Area of high tonne of carbon in soil and biomass.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The Kayapo exercise the traditional governance of their territories.
Evidence B:Well known case. (Although there is a smaller part of the area more under attack for quite some time, as the proposal admits.)
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The proposal explains that the Kayapo depend on the forest to live and maintain their culture.
Evidence B:It does not to the extent possible, but we know it is of high importance for sociodiversity .
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Invasions by miners who illegally exploit the gold, illegal logging of Maderia and aspoliticas the current government is reportedly opposed to the rights of indigenous peoples.
Evidence B:According to Cumulative Development Pressures, it is more medium level. Nevertheless, according to the proposal, and the surrounding context, we can score a higher level.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The initiatives of international cooperation with the indigenous people of Brazil should be scom exclusvamente with these people and their organizations. whereas the current goveno since the election period was against indigenous peoples.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Before the current government and the National Environmental Policy Land Management in Indigenous Lands was an innovative initiative that strengthened governance of indigenous peoples, but this policy has been weakened.
Evidence B:The governmental related regulations, decisions and actions are fundamental, but their implementation does not go as far as needed.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The Caiapó has important expereincias in managing their territories, which includes the creation of surveillance posts in the areas of border their territories.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are other relevant initiatives to support complementary to the Basics Environmental Programs, which are resources to compensate indigenous communities for any impacts to their territories, eg Valley company.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Yes, it is proposed to strengthen the governance of Caiapó and conservation of the environment.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: It is the strengthening of economic capacity of Caiapó and conservaçaoe and protection of the territory of this people.
Evidence B:This is a complementary effort, aligned with a larger strategy, but delivering a smaller part of the text statements. So, a real project proposal (next stage) shall need to clarify the differences between the expectations raised by the text and the real achievements possible by this project.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Support for the development of economic activities of Caiapó could serve to counter the current economic model predatporio, pressing the use of natural resources Caiapó.
Evidence B:The concrete proposed results might be achieved, but the text raise larger expectations. See above.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The aatividades and results of the project will be able to adequately meet the initiative of the Kayapo
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Leading NGOs work with the proponent, which has importatne traditional environmental experience and through partnerships.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Total area under improved management 9.4 million hectares.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: It includes the income generated from the value sustainably and equitably distributed, flowing paraComunidades Kaiapo.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The proposal will be presented as the activities after the end of this project.
Evidence B:The long term strategy is not clear enough in the proposal, but to keep the indigenous peoples communities strong is a key one, as well as to fight invadors. Also, there are other initiatives in the region to assure continuity.
Nevertheless, what is not clear, mostly, it is the nature of the main organisations (mainly the “Associação Floresta Protegida”, as well as the “Instituto Kabu” and “Instituto Raoni”) – although stated as indigenous peoples organisations, with kayapos at the decision level, all behaviour and performance indicate international NGOs-like style. For this question, the point being on the indigenous grassroots organisations long term capacity to relate to such external initiatives.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Currently the policies of the Federal Government shall in Brazil is contrary to the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The Kayapo Manté respect for women and will support their participation in the project.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: AAs activities Innovate when dealing with the strengthening of governance, environmental conservation and sustainable economy, with the potential to transformadosr results laarga scale.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The proposal is presented by indigenous organizations in partnership
Evidence B:The nature of the main organisation is not clear, mainly the “Associação Floresta Protegida”, as well as the associate “Instituto Kabu” and “Instituto Raoni”. Although stated as indigenous peoples organisations, with kayapos at the decision level, all behaviour and performance indicate international NGOs-like style.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The applicant develops lidrança recognized in the territory.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The institutions have the important role in the territory.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The applicant has experience in exucução projects demonstrating his technique capaciade.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The applicant has diversified flows and manages an annual budget in excess of $ 200,000.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA